Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hmmm, interesting point. In my career, that I am retired from now, there were an immense amount of rules and regulations that one had to adhere to by law. The qualification process is rigorous with on going assessments throughout your career and re-certification every 12 months. If you were shown to be not competent in those rules and regulations you could not hold the position and the operational consequences of that could potentially be dire. In the same respect, perhaps a judge who is not conversant in the rules of POFA should not sit in on cases that requires proficiency in that area? I also bow to your considerable knowledge in this area, perhaps I shouldn't be commenting but by doing so I find it helps the learning process. Your last point has just reminded me of something that may help my case, thank you.
    • Just had an email re the my breache in agreement by her rep.   I asked you yesterday if they had asked about her name in the thread being removed.   The issue they have is the Elizabeth turner and genetic pups entry on google.   they knew I did not put it up and told them so in court.  I dnt know how to post on google.   I told them I cannot remove what I did not post.  when i come back here and saw her name gone from threads title, I presumed her reps sought it.   now I get an email saying her names still on google ur breaching the agreement as it’s still on google.  
    • Peter McCormack says "ambition is big" and Real Bedford's attendances are increasing with promotions.View the full article
    • How does one obtain the permit? The permit team number is only open between the hours of 9am to 3pm Mon - Fri. It says on the website, To obtain an additional 2 hours, the driver must pay a tariff of £3.00 + booking fees in person at our Security Hut, is that how you get the permit also, from the security hut? What a rigmaroll that would be but maybe just another step to take to try and catch people out?
    • Anotheruser0000 bear in mind that not all Judges are equally versed in the PoFA regulations. Fortunately now most of them are but sometimes a Judge from a higher Court sits in who is well experienced  in Law but not PoFA. and so they sometimes go "offkey" because their knowledge can raise a different set of arguments and solutions. It does seem particularly unfair  when the decision is so  bad . it can also be that in some situations the motorist being a lay person is not sufficiently know ledgeable to be able to counter a Judge's decisions in a way that a barrister could.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

SimplyBe catalogue-Stalling tactics?


The Unfairy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6227 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I sent my S.A.R letter a few weeks ago. In it I gave the account number, name and address details etc etc. Basically everything that any bank/company would need, I heard nothing but suddenly on Friday got the following letter:

 

Dear Mrs. unfairy

 

Subject Access Enquiry

 

Thank you for the letter dated 11 March which we are treating as a subject access request under the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

(Well I used the letter from here where it says it is in big letters, so well done them so far!)

 

We require you to complete the attached questionnaire and proof of id to enable us to comply with you7r request and statutory obligations plaed upon us concerning secu7re access to data. We acknowledge reeipt of your heque for £10, which is the fee payable for this service. Please note the application annot be processed until the form is receivedf.

 

Yours sincerely

 

I. AM. Goingtocauseadelay

@Any cost.

 

?

Does this seem like a stalling tactic to anyone else?

 

In the questionnaire it also states. We will endeavour to respond promptly and in any event within 40days of the latest of the following:

* Your cheque clearing

*Our reeipt of this request

*Our receipt of any further information from you which is required to enable us to comply with your request.

 

Would I be within my rights to say that they had all the information at the time of the original letter and that I see this as just a delaying tactic. That I am enclosing this questionnaire but I have the right to take the 40 days from my original request as I gave them the account number and all the info that they could possibly need then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

unfortunatley they are within their rights (under the Data Protection Act) to confirm your identity as they would be commiting an offence under the Data Protection Act if they sent your data to someone else without checking the identity. having said that you are right in that it is a delaying tactic but one they are legally allowed. the 40 days start from when they have the questionaire so its in your interest to return it ASAP

 

i hope this helps

 

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...